Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1444562, member: 112&quot;]Oh I firmly believe you&#039;re largely correct Mike. I think they did it because people accepted it. But think about it for a second - it had to start someplace. In order for people to accept it, they first had to try it and see if people accepted it - now didn&#039;t they ?</p><p><br /></p><p>What caused them to try it ? Danged if I know. But it sure as heck happened. I watched it happen. I started complaining and posting about it shortly after it happened. And have been ever since. Based on my personal observations, it started happening in 2004. You, me, everybody else, we&#039;ve discussed that a hundred times. Mark Feld even agreed with me once, but in his opinion the change occured before 2004.</p><p><br /></p><p>What I know, not what I think, what I know, is this. By my personal observation the change happened in 2004, you can call that opinion if you want but that&#039;s when I started seeing it and I know what I saw. By 2005 there were articles being published by well respected numismatists in the coin mags like Numismatic News and Coin World, hinting at the same thing that I was seeing. And if you look at population tables, for specific grades, from the end of 2003 and then compare them to pop tables from the end of 2004, you see a huge increase in the pops of those grades. And I mean increases of 300-500%, or more - in 1 year !</p><p><br /></p><p>Now couple all of that together, and I dunno what it tells you, but it tells me that grading standards changed significantly - loosened - in 2004. I was seeing the change, others were seeing the change, and the pop numbers confirmed the change.</p><p><br /></p><p>Walks like duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck - it must be a duck ![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in